[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- From: Brian McMahon <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:05:09 +0000
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
Dear James
Sorry for the delay in replying to this request. A long train
journey yesterday gave me the opportunity to review the
discussions on this point. In order of preference I would
rank the proposals as roughly:
F' - requires least handling of special escapes
E - allows the generic handling of Unicode character set and
long lines as native CIF2 features (but only within "special"
i.e. triple-quote delimited strings)
I think these allow embedding of any string in a reasonably clean way.
C - I quite like, provided the post-elide escape could be a sequence
(e.g. borrowing from TeX, the trigraph "{} is read as a
double-quote; the literal sequence
<doublequote><open brace><close brace> would be represented by "{}{}
and any other sequence would have no special meaning). If those with
greater experience argue that this imposes too great a load on the
initial lexical scan, or can demonstrate that this leads too
quickly to a proliferation of unreadable punctuation marks,
this would drop quickly down the lilst of preferred approaches).
F - because I'm not sure what is gained just by protecting the
escape character everywhere; but on the other hand it may seem
an easy procedure to describe to potential implementors
A
B - carries an unwelcome overhead in requiring the escape character
(here, backslash) to be encoded everywhere
D
P - brings in unnecessary syntactiv overhead when we can achieve a
closed system by simpler means.
Best wishes
Brian
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:20:09AM +1100, James Hester wrote:
> By my count there are 6 distinct proposals for eliding triple-quoted
> strings on the table, which I have listed below. In order to get an
> idea of where we all stand and which proposals are most likely to
> succeed, I'd like to invite you all to reply to this email with a list
> of proposals which you would find acceptable. If you like, you can
> rank them in order of preference. In the list below I've given short
> descriptions, but you should refer to the original emails for the full
> details. The opinions of COMCIFS voting members are of course most
> significant at this juncture, but I for one am interested in the
> thoughts of the other members as well.
>
> Proposal P (for Python): Ralf's original proposal to do everything as in Python
> Proposal A: <backslash><delimiter> elides the delimiter, no other
> sequences are significant
> Proposal B: \uxxxx to represent Unicode characters, no other sequences
> are significant
> Proposal C: as yet unspecified character post-elides the delimiter
> where necessary
> Proposal D: as for C, except post-elide character is given immediately
> before opening triple delimiter
> Proposal E: (John B's suggestion) \uxxxx for Unicode character
> together with \<newline> and \\
> Proposal F: (Simon's proposal) \<newline> and \\ only
> Proposal F': (My slight tweak of Simon's proposal) \<newline> only
> when not preceded by \
>
> I find proposal P unacceptable, and would rank the others in order of
> preference roughly as follows:
>
> Best: F', F, C
> Bearable: A, B, E
> In a pinch: D
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion (James Hester)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship asmong CIF2, STAR, CIF1 and Python. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship asmong CIF2, STAR, CIF1 and Python. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- Index(es):

